We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
“Perhaps the greatest paradox of all is that parts of the Maga movement are embracing a form of Right-wing wokery, with their own dark conspiracy theories, cult of victimhood, identity politics, denial of reality, moral grandstanding, hypersensitivity and purity tests.
“In this vein, whingeing about trade deficits deserves to be dismissed as critical trade theory’, as Trumpian corollary of critical race theory: it postulates, nonsensically, that any shortfall must be caused by unfair practices, oppression or historic injustice. The ‘woke Right,’ a term coined by James Lindsay, is almost as much of a turn-off as the original Left-wing variety.”
– Allister Heath, Daily Telegraph (£)
He gives Mr Trump high marks on taking the fight vs DEI, some of the DOGE cuts (with a few caveats), and on energy policy (which in my view is Trump’s ace in the hole). But the broader point Heath makes about where he thinks Trump/Maga is losing it, including this nifty term of Heath’s, “critical trade theory”, is absolutely spot-on. It is, in my view, one of the big blinds spots of today’s populist Right and threatens to undo the good things that a Trump 2.0 might achieve, which would be bad not just for the US, but the West in general. As Heath goes on to write (and remember, he’s a pro-Brexit, free market chap, and not some obdurate Never Trumper), a course correction is needed. And Trump is not incapable of it.
“Liberal operatives planted ‘stop the steal’ buttons at conservative conference” reports the CBC (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation). By “buttons” they mean what we in the UK call “badges”.
Two Liberal Party staffers attended last week’s Canada Strong and Free Networking (CSFN) Conference where they planted buttons that used Trump-style language and highlighted division within the Conservative Party.
[…]
Some attendees noticed buttons appearing at the event.
One said “stop the steal” — an apparent reference to Donald Trump’s attempts to overturn the result of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.
[…]
The buttons were scattered in the event space in a way to give the impression that they were made and left by people attending the conference.
In fact, the idea came from the Liberal war room.
On Friday night, in two Ottawa bars, campaign workers shared how the party was behind this move — two Liberal Party staffers attended the conference intended for conservatives and placed these buttons in areas where attendees would find them.
At the pub D’Arcy McGee’s near Parliament Hill, a number of Liberal war room staffers met for drinks on the far side of the bar. This journalist joined one of them for a quick conversation, but heard another staffer, who had previously identified himself as being involved in opposition research, describing how he and a colleague planted the buttons.
The staffer knew he was sitting next to a journalist. When confronted, the staffer at first confirmed what he’d done. But he then denied saying anything when told that CBC News would be reporting on the operation.
To be fair, the staffer’s confident assumption that any Canadian journalist listening would prefer to share in the laughter of the in-group at putting one over the Conservatives rather than report the deception to the public was reasonable given past form. Kudos to Kate McKenna of CBC News for proving him wrong.
The Liberal Party said Sunday evening that some campaigners “regrettably got carried away” with the use of buttons “poking fun” at reports of Conservative infighting.
Liberal spokesperson Kevin Lemkay said the party has conducted a review of the matter and that leader Mark Carney had made it clear “this does not fit his commitment to serious and positive discourse.”
So the culprits have been fired, then? No. Just reassigned.
Ms McKenna’s report finishes with a Conservative spokesperson saying, “One wonders what other dirty tricks the Liberals are behind”. That was my first thought too. Remember those swastikas and confederate flags seen at Canada’s ‘Freedom Convoy’ that Justin Trudeau was so outraged about? While I have no doubt that there were genuine extremists and nutters among the truckers of the Freedom Convoy, as there are in any large political movement, it is perfectly reasonable to wonder whether the Liberal Party was playing the same sort of tricks in 2022 as it was in 2025. A Liberal Party staffer happily boasting in public about having planted fake political emblems to discredit opponents of his party suggests that it is an accepted practice in his subculture.
“It’s time to pay kidney donors”, writes Jeremiah Johnson in The Dispatch.
He’s wrong. It’s long since past time.
Six years ago, Mr Johnson altruistically donated one of his kidneys to someone who was at that time a stranger. That is admirable. It is also quite rare.
Despite donors like me, end-stage renal disease (ESRD) is still a huge problem in America. It’s a silent epidemic that kills more people than car crashes, breast cancer, homicide or suicide. There is no cure for ESRD—you either get a transplanted kidney or live the rest of your life on dialysis. As of September, there were almost 90,000 people on the kidney waiting list.
The worst part is that, for so many, these deaths are completely preventable.
While there are some ESRD patients who are too old for surgery or too sick to be helped, the majority of ESRD patients can easily extend their lifespan with a donated kidney. Our best estimates show that tens of thousands of people die every year, when they could have been saved by a donated kidney.
We simply don’t have enough kidneys, and people are dying by the tens of thousands because of it. We do, however, have another way to address the problem. We can pay people who choose to donate.
Mr Johnson outlines some of the objections to paying kidney donors:
I know that for some folks, paying for organs seems morally questionable. Perhaps it feels like a violation of the sacred nature of the human body. Or perhaps paying someone to do a good act seems like it inherently violates the altruistic nature of that act. Some folks might have concerns that this will lead to the commoditization of organs or will be used to exploit poor people. I understand and I sympathize with those concerns.
Probably more than I do, but even I acknowledge that the possibility of someone donating a kidney to get out of an immediate financial hole but regretting it later is real. But something similar is true of any consequential decision in life. The only way to make people safe from regretting their decisions would be to take away their control over their own lives. And, as Mr Johnson movingly describes in the next few paragraphs, the human beings currently desperately waiting for a kidney who would be given decades more life (and a life free of the constraints of dialysis) if the number of available kidneys was increased, are also real.
The “icky” thing I mentioned in the title to this post is not donating a kidney. It is allowing someone else to profit by selling one.
In the comments to my previous post, Zerren Yeoville was inspired by the Pogues’ 1987 classic Fairytale of New York to pen the following lines for Birmingham in its current travails:
‘They’ve got rats big as cats
They’ve got rivers of mould
The smell goes right through ya
You’d best have a cold
When you first took the bins out
On a cold winter’s eve
You promised me dustcarts
were “waiting, you’ll see”….’
The rats as big as cats were also mentioned in the Sun‘s headline today:
NO END IN SIGHT Huge blow for locals in UK’s ‘third-world city’ where Army called in to tackle cat-sized rats & 21k TONS of rubbish
A major incident has already been declared by Birmingham City Council
Lest anyone think the Sun is being melodramatic, the BBC’s headline does not merely feature cat-sized rats but cat-sized rats who have begun their insurrection against humanity:
‘Cat-sized rats are attacking our cars’
NickM also provided commentary in verse on the Birmingham bin strike, but, unless I have misunderstood, that one was written by A.I. so it doesn’t count.
Gosh, ChatGPT is getting alarmingly good.
‘Rayner calls in Army to tackle Birmingham bin crisis’, the Telegraph reports:
Angela Rayner has called in the Army to tackle the Birmingham bin crisis.
The Local Government Secretary has used formal powers known as Military Aid to the Civil Authorities (Maca) to summon Army experts after a strike by bin workers, which has lasted over a month, left more than 17,000 tons of waste rotting in the streets.
It is understood a small number of military personnel with operational planning expertise are offering logistical support to tackle the crisis. Sources said there were contingency plans in place to scale up the number of soldiers involved if necessary.
If such a scaling-up does prove necessary, Ms Rayner can cite the example of one of the most revered of Labour leaders:
The London dock strike of July 1949, led by Communists, was suppressed when the Attlee Government sent in 13,000 Army troops and passed special legislation to promptly end the strike. His response reveals Attlee’s growing concern that Soviet expansionism, supported by the British Communist Party, was a genuine threat to national security, and that the docks were highly vulnerable to sabotage ordered by Moscow. He noted that the strike was caused not by local grievances, but to help communist unions who were on strike in Canada. Attlee agreed with MI5 that he faced “a very present menace”.
OK, the parallel between Attlee’s summoning of the Army and Rayner’s is not close, and I made it mostly to poke fun at present day lefties, whose hymns of praise to Attlee usually leave out the verse about him using the army to break a strike, and always omit the one about him being the father of the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent.
A better historical parallel to explain Ms Rayner’s distinct lack of solidarity with the striking binmen would be the 1978-9 “Winter of Discontent”.
In the future, people will study propaganda like “Adolescence” in the way they study “Triumph of the Will” as a way to understand Germany in 1935.
– Perry de Havilland
Server still being attacked, so expect lags & comment posting problems.
As you can imagine, there have been a lot of attempts to make sense of what Mr Trump is trying to do about tariffs. As of the time of my writing this, the dollar is coming under pressure, Mr Trump appears to be ratcheting up the tariff war with China to even higher levels, and there are signs that a few of his allies are getting nervous (seriously, how on earth can he have people working in his government such as Elon Musk and Peter Navarro who talk to each other in this way?)
One way to think about the the US/rest of world imbalances is that this is about production and consumption. In various ways, countries such as Germany, Japan and China produce a lot, and tend to be careful on how much they consume; on the flipside, the US loves to consume. As Joseph Sternberg in the Wall Street Journal puts it:
The core of Intellectual Trumpism runs as follows: The global economy is characterized by large, policy-induced imbalances in both trade and capital flows. These are caused at root by the decisions of some large economies—Germany, Japan and especially China are the usual suspects—to subsidize production by suppressing consumption in their domestic economies. This creates “surplus” output that they foist on the U.S.
This view isn’t wrong, so far as it goes. Those economies and others historically deployed a range of policy tools to boost exports. In China, the most egregious manifestations are direct subsidies for exporting companies. Less visible to foreign eyes is the financial repression: the deliberate suppression of domestic interest rates and political control of credit to subsidize businesses (which benefit from cheap borrowing) at the expense of consumers (who receive less income from their saving and investment). Such policies can take many forms. In Germany, extensive subsidies shield large companies—meaning exporters—from the worst energy-price consequences of Berlin’s dumb net-zero climate policies. Households pay full freight for electricity.
This is an interesting point about the control of credit and yes, Net Zero, intersecting in ways that suppress consumption and encourage production, much of which has to go overseas – to places like the US.
Sternberg continues:
Because other economies under-consume, the argument runs, they accumulate excess savings. They recycle these savings into the U.S., where we transform foreign claims (in the form of equity investments or purchases of American debt) into consumption of the foreign country’s excess production. Hey presto, a trade deficit.
An oddity of this argument is how little agency the U.S. is said to exercise. Once Washington had made the first mistake of opening our economy via tariff reductions and the free flow of capital, it was off to the races.
The truth is much more complex, and politically challenging: While some other economies suppress domestic consumption and subsidize export production, Americans choose to do almost exactly the opposite. Through political choices such as suppressing energy production and distribution, or permitting red tape and the like, or any number of other policy foibles, we make it much harder than it otherwise would be to produce things in the U.S. Meanwhile, you can’t take a step in America without tripping over a consumption subsidy.
So what has the US been doing to encourage consumption?
To cite a few: Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac stimulate overconsumption of housing. Subsidized student loans stimulate overconsumption of higher education (which, given the poor lifetime earnings prospects of many degrees, should indeed be understood as consumption rather than as an investment in human capital). The earned-income tax credit creates complex distortions that at the margin subsidize consumption while discouraging additional productive work.
Most glaring, though, are our entitlements. Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, not to mention a raft of other benefit programs, funnel vast quantities of money into consumption. The trick here is that we’re able to finance these via chronic fiscal deficits funded by foreign investors, meaning at the margin Americans borrow from the rest of the world at ultralow interest rates and funnel the cash into consumption at home.
And as the writer says, the “root-cause” solution to the trade deficit issue, to the extent that it is a problem that governments should address, is to rebalance – get rid of consumption subsidies and stop penalising production. That means, for instance, rolling back regulations, zoning laws, etc. (To the limited extent that this is being done by Trump, that is a mark in his favour.)
Some elements of such an agenda can be popular, as Mr. Trump is discovering with his deregulation and cheaper-energy drives. But the entitlement half is a minefield. Republicans are reluctant even about dialing back Medicaid benefits for able-bodied working-age people. The last time anyone tried to reform Social Security, President George W. Bush backed allowing a portion of payroll tax payments to flow into individual investment accounts. The existing system creates a consumption subsidy by transforming tax payments into transfers to recipients; the reform would have created a form of investment subsidy. That bit of good sense degenerated into a traumatic political fiasco for the GOP.
This the key. Social Security and other big entitlement programmes in the US are, as they are in the UK and much of the West, popular with ordinary voters; and the voters who switched from the Democrats to Republicans in 2016 and 2024 aren’t going to be happy to see these programmes reformed or reduced. It is therefore easy to see why tariffs are a tempting technique – it is easier to go on about those naughty, over-producing Asians and Germans as being at fault, rather than because incentives are structured as they are.
Sternberg concludes:
Note that the end result [of tariffs] is in one way the same as entitlement reform: less U.S. consumption, only via the demand suppression of higher import prices. But beyond that, the two policies diverge—and not to Intellectual Trumpism’s advantage. Among many other problems, protectionism risks depressing domestic production, a warning emerging from industries across America whose supply chains are imperiled by tariffs. It certainly doesn’t help domestic productivity. Entitlement reform, by contrast, tends to be an enormous supply-side spur to future economic growth that benefits households as inflation-adjusted wages rise.
The problem, however, is that entitlement reform is very hard to do, politically. There are some things that will also be politically tough: not everyone likes deregulation, given how occupational licensing and so on often shields vested interests. (Think of how the London mayor tried to hit Uber, at the urging of the traditional taxi sector, a few years ago.) Zoning laws are a problem but they are also supported by people who want to protect the value of their properties, as they see them, and so on. In certain countries, the planning system is so convoluted that it is a major brake on production. Fixing all this takes political will and the risk of antagonising vested interests.
As Matthew Lynn, a columnist writing in the Sunday Telegraph (£) puts it, the compulsion on car firms to build more electric vehicles (EVs), on pain of large fines, was already causing great damage to the UK and European economy. With the US now imposing blanket 25% tariffs on car imports from the UK, the Net Zero obsession is suicidal for the UK-based car industry, home to brands such as Jaguar Landrover, which has just paused shipments to the US:
“It would be ridiculous for the Government to start fining the car companies for not selling enough cars that no one really wants at the same time as the Trump administration is hitting them with huge new levies in their main export market. None of the car companies is in exactly great shape to start with. The combination may well prove fatal.
The [UK] government should announce an immediate one-year suspension of the EV target, and then start a consultation on postponing it for another five or even 10 years. If it was scrapped immediately no one would miss it.”
Tens of thousands of car workers could lose their jobs, unless there is a drastic change in policy in the UK – never mind what the Trump administration chooses to do – and they live in those famed “Red Wall” seats that the insurgent new party, Reform, is targeting at the next General Election.
[a] trade imbalance is not an inherently bad thing. it can be a very good thing, a beneficial thing. this idea that if we buy $50bn more goods from kermeowistan every year than they buy from us that it implies that they are somehow “taking advantage” or this this is “unstainable” or negative is flatly false. it’s actually ridiculous. it ignores complex trade flows and balancing factors like “capital flows.”
people really seem to struggle with this, but it’s not that difficult. you’ll will have a large lifetime trade deficit with the grocery store. you will buy much from them. they will buy nothing from you. is this a problem for you? is it unsustainable? most people seem to sustain this beneficial grocery trade their whole lives.
why is it any different if it crosses a border or gets aggregated by nation? (spoiler alert, it’s not)
you’ll likely run a lifetime trade deficit with many countries too. you buy a BMW. that’s a deficit to germany. you run a restaurant in toledo. you have no german customers. does this fact harm you in some way? did germany take advantage of you? would it be better for you if we imposed a tax that made that BMW 25% more expensive? no, and if we do, it might create automotive jobs in the US, but the cost to do so is YOUR choice and your budget.
– El Gato Malo
Follow the link, read the whole thing.
The lads from Ulitsa Savushkina have been poking the blog hard & smitebot’s algorithm has become cantankerous once again.
I am travelling to the US soon. I go there regularly for work. Reason magazine has this article. Worth a read:
Border phone searches are in the news a lot lately. Last month, a French scientist was allegedly blocked from coming to a conference in Houston after U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) found statements against President Donald Trump on his phone. A few days later, Brown University doctor Rasha Alawieh was turned away at the airport after CBP allegedly found pro-Hezbollah images on her phone.
How does CBP have the power to rummage through phones so easily? After all, ordinary police can’t just stop you on the street and search your phone without a warrant. But courts have recognized a border exemption to the Fourth Amendment, allowing the government to conduct routine anti-smuggling searches of travelers. Although some lower courts have weighed in on whether that exemption applies to personal electronic files, there’s no definitive ruling yet on phone searches at the border.
Until the Supreme Court rules on the issue, CBP officers are mostly limited by the agency’s own internal regulations. The regulations allow officers to conduct a “basic search” (flipping through the phone by hand) at their discretion, and require “reasonable suspicion” or a “national security concern” to conduct an “advanced search” with forensic phone hacking software such as Cellebrite. The regulations also restrict officers to searching what’s already on the phone, not downloading new data, so phone searches should be conducted in airplane mode or otherwise disconnected from the internet.
As the article notes, organisations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation have put up advice on what to do. The EEF states this: “As of this writing, the federal government is considering requiring disclosure from certain foreign visitors of social media login credentials, allowing access to private postings and “friend” lists.”
For what it is worth, I haven’t ever been asked to show my phone to immigration authorities in places including Hong Kong, Singapore, Dubai, Switzerland, France, Germany, Malta, or for that matter, the US at airports in California, Boston, Miami, New York and Chicago. But that might change. Sadly, where the US “leads”, the rest of the world can follow. The US is land of the free, and all that. It does, or at least has, set the tone, even if performance was spotty in actual reality.
The Reason article makes the following points about the UK, Australia, New Zealand and Canada:
Another consideration is what happens on the other side of the journey. Canada, Britain, Australia, and New Zealand, which all share intelligence with the U.S. government under the Five Eyes program, have different border privacy policies. Under Australian law, travelers do not have to unlock their phones. Canadian authorities, like US authorities, say they will seize a phone if a traveler refuses to unlock it. New Zealand imposes a $5,000 fine for failing to unlock a phone, and Britain considers refusing to unlock a phone for police to be a counterterrorism offense.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Recent Comments